🔗 Share this article

The descendants of a Jewish couple have brought a case against The Metropolitan Museum of Art, claiming that a Van Gogh art piece was stolen by the Third Reich.

Origins of the Dispute

Per the court documents, the Stern couple purchased the painting, titled Olive Harvest, in the year 1935. A year after, they were forced to flee their residence in the German city of Munich just before World War II.

The suit argues that the Met, which obtained the artwork in 1956 for a significant sum, should have known it was almost certainly looted property. The family are now requesting the restitution of the canvas along with compensation.

Following the war, this plundered piece has been frequently and covertly traded, bought and sold in and through the city of New York, claims the court document.

Forced Emigration

The Sterns departed from the city of Munich to America in 1936 with their six children due to the oppressive Nazi regime. Yet, they were barred from transporting the Van Gogh piece, which was created by the celebrated artist in 1889.

Before the family's emigration, the regime declared the artwork as a German cultural asset and forbade the Sterns from exporting it. After obtaining permission from a Nazi official, a agent assigned by the authorities sold the artwork on the family's behalf. But, the money from the auction were held in a restricted account, which the authorities later confiscated.

Subsequent Ownership

Around 1948, or soon after, the canvas arrived in New York and was acquired by Vincent Astor, one of America's wealthiest people. Subsequently, it was transferred through a commercial outlet to the Met, which then sold it to prominent shipowner Goulandris and his spouse, Mrs. Goulandris, in the early 1970s.

The Greek couple established the Goulandris Foundation in the late 1970s, which runs a museum in Athens where the masterpiece is currently exhibited.

Claims and Defenses

The institution and a family member of Goulandris are listed as respondents. The lawsuit states that the defendants and its associated organizations have hidden and obscured the painting's ownership and location from the plaintiffs.

Even now, the defendants continue to obscure how and when the institution came into control of the artwork; the Stern family's ownership of the artwork from several years; and the reality that the regime stole the artwork from the Stern family, coerced the Sterns into parting with it via a regime representative, and seized the proceeds of the transaction.

Prior Cases

The descendants submitted a comparable case in California in 2022, but it was rejected in the following years. An further action was also rejected in recently.

Museum's Response

The complaint contends that the museum's acquisition of the piece was authorized by the museum's expert, the Met's authority of European art and a renowned specialist on art theft during the Nazi era. Rousseau and the Met must have known that the Painting had likely been looted by the Nazis.

The institution responded that it prioritizes its ongoing pledge to resolve issues related to WWII.

A representative commented: Not once during the museum's possession of the artwork was there any evidence that it had previously been owned to the heirs – actually, that knowledge did not become accessible until a long time after the masterpiece left the institution's holdings.

The Met's sale of Olive Picking met the Met's guidelines for deaccessioning – in particular, it was recorded that the piece was considered to be of lesser quality than additional artworks of the same type in the inventory. Even though The Met respectfully stands by its stance that this artwork entered the holdings and was deaccessioned lawfully and well within all rules and regulations, the museum is open to and will review any further evidence that is discovered.

BEG's Response

A lawyer on behalf of the foundation commented: The institution is a renowned institution in Athens. The action to litigate and defame the organization and the defendants in the America upon misleadingly incomplete allegations was earlier rejected, on two occasions. We are certain it will be again.